User talk:Eduardian

September 2021
Hello, I'm Njd-de. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Andrew Christian, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! – NJD-DE (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP issues
Please familiarise yourself with the WP:BLP policy if you are going to continue editing in relation to living persons.

Alert
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Star  Mississippi  15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You will need to make a clear case for why you should be unblocked given these gross violations. Star   Mississippi  15:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have seen this and retain my concerns about an SPA and BLP violating edits, but defer to an uninvolved administrator's judgement. Feel free to take any action you deem fit. Star   Mississippi  20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor's entire editing history is using pages to add problematic content, presumably to further grudges against living persons. On one article they're edit warring to add unrelated extensive material about alleged crimes committed by non-notable private persons. Even ignoring the "register number" and "sentencing information from the Federal Bureau of Prisons" and "DOJ press releases" stuff above, their editing is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, is damaging to living persons (the subject of whom was at the help desk concerned about the article content). Nothing good will come of an unblock, the block should stay. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your response is noted. For the administrator who reviews this further, please take note that Star Mississippi has chosen to forego the administrators' requirement for accountability in refusing to respond to a direct request for clarification as well as administrator conduct by acting in bad faith, hiding their notes to fellow administrators in the source and making allegations of a personal motivation in sharing information that is protected by the BLP guidelines (they have been revealed with my edit to the page). The individual is notable in relation to the company, and their conviction had a direct impact on the publications, as well as English Language Manga published in the West. Claims of edit warring are unfounded, as this edit was a correction of a previous edit to be in line with the BLP policy. It is evidence enough of a course correction. Star Mississippi have noted, themselves, that this block is motivated by the individual filing a help desk ticket, and it is clear that they did not do their due diligence in reviewing the citations. While I understand that Wikipedia has an obligation to protect the reputation of living people, this individual damaged their own reputation by committing the crimes they were convicted of. Attempting to bury this information from the public and the history of the industry not only erases the seven victims, but the countless people that were impacted by the closure of the publisher, due to her actions.


 * Nice try Eduardian. I'm not foregoing the requirement for accountability, but recusing myself as I am involved and therefore giving you the chance to have your block reviewed by someone who is neutral. In all honesty, your follow up reads that you're trying to right great wrongs, which is not what Wikipedia is here for. The individual's article was deleted, and they were therefore deemed not notable. You trying to use an article about the company (note, I was not the one who removed the content) as an excuse to focus on this person's reputation is also not what Wikipedia is here for. Star   Mississippi  22:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as the subsection on righting great wrongs clearly states that the information must not be shared on Wikipedia until it has been reported by mainstream media or other reputable sources - which it had. Aside from that, the section existed long before my edit, which updated the section with current, correct information, that the individual had plead guilty to the charges and this had an effect on the publishing and future of the company. It seems to be only now, with that correct information added, that the individual has deemed it necessary to contest it. Recusing oneself when asked for direct clarification constitutes side-stepping one's responsibility to accountability, in my opinion, but I'm happy to leave that to another moderator's discretion - as well as why an indefinite ban was issued, rather than a temporary ban, warning, or rollback with explanation.Eduardian (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)